Posted - 01/17/2014 : 15:58:26 With the recent struggles of the Canucks, the local sports radio program has been inundated with calls from Canucks fans to make a deal or two. So, i'm wondering what trades you all think teams should or could make before the Olympics OR the trade deadline. It doesn't have to be your favorite team, but try to keep the suggestions realistic. A suggestion of D. Keith and P. Sharp for O. Jokinen and a 4th rounder is wasting everyone's time.

I'll start by saying if the Canucks make ANY sort of move, it shouldn't be for a rental as they are more than one piece away from being a serious cup contender in the west. There's Steve Ott talk again in this area but as a pending UFA, i'm not sure he's worth what he'd command, not to mention, he's more of a 3rd liner and not a scorer which would be the #1 issue the Canucks would like to address (lack of scoring).

The interesting talk of the day, with Pierre McGuire, was the possibility of a Ryan O'Reilly deal to Vancouver. I believe the date is Feb 28 when the one year is up in which Colorado couldn't deal him (due to the offer sheet matching they did last year) and there's talk they may be interested in moving him. McGuire thinks the Canucks will be VERY interested, however he won't come cheap! Chris Tanev and Bo Horvat were mentioned though that may not even be enough???

Lastly, after the Kings beat the Blues yet again, St Louis could very well be in the market for a Ryan Miller type upgrade in net??? The Blues are deep everywhere and have two "adequate" goalies, though neither really close to "elite". Buffalo is in total rebuild mode and will def be entertaining offers for Miller's services. How about Miller to St Louis for Elliot, D. Jaskin and 2014 1st rounder (late 1st round). Not sure Buff would be interesting in Elliot or not but will Enroth be the answer? Not even sure that the offer would be enough and it will depend on how many teams have interest in Miller. Also, i don't see St. Louis wanting to trade any of it's core considering how good they've played this year.

Thoughts? Trade suggestions? Wish list for your team?

40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)

Alex116

Posted - 03/07/2014 : 21:01:52 Mandree....pretty sure he will. I think the only way he doesn't is if he goes absolutely nuts in Montreal and finds some serious chemisty with a guy or two there. Even then he may, you just never know. Then again, if Montreal likes what they see, they could offer him some decent coin.

mandree888

Posted - 03/07/2014 : 15:00:55 The leafs did inquire about vanek i heard they offered their first round pick BUT NYI had to absoprb some of his salary. NYI refused and took a worse deal because they are cheap.

NOW montreal has a leaf killer in the ranks not good news for TOR. although as a leaf fan i hope vanek stays true to his word and tests free agency.

Alex116

Posted - 03/07/2014 : 12:12:06

quote:Originally posted by ryan93

According to the deadline day coverage, the Leafs had inquired on Vanek, at least in the early going while the price was still much higher than what the Habs ended up paying.

That's interesting and it brings up something i've always wondered about. I know the deadline is 3pm EST, and that trades flow in for an hour or more after (waiting on final approvals and such), but i often think about just how quickly some of these deals come together at the end, just prior to the deadline.

Did Garth Snow wait too long and finally have to make a call and snag anything he could? After agreeing to the deal with the Habs, did he not have a few mins to call Toronto or Ottawa or LA, etc and say "what's your final / best offer"? Or would these have already been made and he simply calls the one he likes the best just prior to 3pm? If so, why wouldn't the Leafs have been able to offer more than the Habs?

So many questions. I'd love to sit in a teams "war room" on deadline day to see what exactly goes on!

ryan93

Posted - 03/07/2014 : 04:51:26 According to the deadline day coverage, the Leafs had inquired on Vanek, at least in the early going while the price was still much higher than what the Habs ended up paying.

Alex116

Posted - 03/06/2014 : 16:31:28

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADAVanek to Montreal is great for Montreal and bad for every other eastern playoff team and horrible for NYI period, Snow and the owner have literally solidified themselves again as the worst owned managed and run organization in all of sports.

Bill Watters was on the radio today here doing an interview and he brought up a very good point. Why did the Leafs not move on Vanek? He is only costing Montreal 800K capwise for the remainder of the year and as a rental, wasn't overly expensive for them. He felt that this is the kind of deal a team like Toronto needed to make to give them that extra boost in the playoffs. Vanek could be the difference between going into the second round or not? He was quite disappointed in the Leafs though he did admit, he doesn't know if they inquired and were outbid? Having said that, the price was so low for what Vanek brings to the table that he said they easily could and should have offered more than that deal Snow took?

Thoughts from Leafers? Others?

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 03/06/2014 : 12:00:11 I have kept quiet for a bit and watched the comments roll in. I have had a history of knee jerk reacting to others suggestions for a while now and look back 20-20 seeing the wisdom.

Loungo out of Vancouver, great news unless you had hopes of a playoff run this year. The fact it happened a year late kinda bites but I think the saga was too long the main story for Vancouver regardless of how the team or Loungo was playing.

Vanek to Montreal is great for Montreal and bad for every other eastern playoff team and horrible for NYI period, Snow and the owner have literally solidified themselves again as the worst owned managed and run organization in all of sports.

Hemsky to Ottawa, great news for Hemsky, good value for the Sens who need veteran help now and have the parts and pieces to support Hemskys game. I think this is even good news for the Oilers who struggle every year with what to do with Hemsky and the distraction ever year come trade deadline. Hell they don't even know what to do come contract time with this guy, when comparing him to other players of his caliber there isn't enough of a reason to lowball him or him to take a home town discount. At the end of the year Hemsky can finally get an idea of his value and in the meantime a fresh start in Ottawa. Heres hoping he becomes the Hemsky of old which helps Ottawa make a run to the playoffs or it was a waste and a little to late.

Alex116

Posted - 03/06/2014 : 08:02:19

quote:Originally posted by nuxfanI simply don't think that a rebuild must include getting rid of Kesler. I understand that he would provide a good return - it is because HE IS A REALLY GOOD PLAYER. He's a 29 year old centre in the prime of his career that produces consistently, plays his heart out, and does everything for this team. He is very cap friendly at 5M per year, and has 2 more years on his contract. Every team in the NHL would like to add that kind of player, and VAN only has one - so if he has not explicitly requested a trade, why is VAN so keen to give him up?

There's a couple of reasons i feel Kesler needs to be moved as a part of the rebuild. First, he would be a BIG part of the rebuild because he's the asset we have that would quite possibly have the best return on him. Even if the Sedin's wanted out, their contract and term and the fact they more or less come as a package, brings their value down more than likely. It could be argued they'd return more however it's prob a moot point as i don't think they'd be open to a trade. Second, i'm going to go ahead and assume that Kesler would be open to a move to a contender. He denies asking for a trade and i believe him, however, i'm almost certain that what i said before is true, that he'd be willing to move if the Canucks choose to rebuild. IF he had gone on record and said "I've never asked to be moved, i've never said i'd waive my NTC, i do not want to move nor WILL I waive my NTC as i love it here in Vancouver, love the city, the fans, the people and plan to live here after my career is done" (or something along those lines), THEN i'd believe he's not interested in leaving. He's not done that and certainly hasnt' convinced me he's against a move. I think that more than explains why i think he needs to go. We do not need him as part of the rebuild, aside from the assets he'd return.

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

They have other trade-able assets that they can use. They are rich in defensemen, Edler would fetch a great return. Forwards that are paid a lot and not producing - Burrows comes to mind. Assuming they buy out Booth this summer, they'll have 10M additional dollars, in addition to a cap raise, to add pieces to the team via free agency. They have promising prospects (Horvat, Jensen), that will likely get a serious shot next year. All very valuable in a rebuilding effort.

Unfortunately , their "other tradeable assets" are not going to return a whole lot. I agree Edler "could" fetch a great return, however he has to be willing to waive his NTC. My guess is that he's not given the ok for the Canucks to move him. I think that because his name became an afterthought during the deadline. We heard no offer for him and it was suddenly very quiet in regards to Edler as the deadline got close. Burrows could get us a piece, however the "buy low / sell high" theory says hang onto him for now. His trade value today is arguably lower than 10 mins after he was plucked outta the ECHL. Buy Booth out, sure, free up that money. BUT, i'm not sure what FA's will want to come here to a team in full rebuild mode? We need to look to get younger guys, most FA's are older as they need to put in their time to get FA status. If there's one out there that helps the rebuild, and is willing to come here, absolutely, go for it! The youngsters, i absolutely want to see them get a shot here next year. Horvat, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Jensen, etc, come on in! It's their time to step in and earn a spot as there should be spots open for the taking!

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

Just because we're using the word "rebuild", doesn't mean you have to chuck everyone that is good out and replace them with unproven youth. Most people in the city agree the Canucks need to improve, but I don't think anyone wants to go through an EDM-style "rebuild"

I think Edmonton gets ragged on a bit much here. People say they went too young and had no veteran presence to help the kids along? They reaquired Smyth, they had Horcoff and i'm sure they had some other veterans. It' not as though they came in with a team of all 19 year olds and tried to win. IMO, where they screwed up was on the back end. Their D has been terrible and their goaltending not much better. Vancouver's D, especially if Edler, Hamhuis, etc decide they want to stick around (add in Tanev who's not got much choice) is much better and will allow this team to be somewhat competetive on most nights (assuming the goaltending can be good). We also have a couple of perfect guys to mentor the youth in the twins. Assuming they wanna stay here, what two better guys can you think of to represent what the Canucks and the city of Vancouver have to offer? I don't want to see this rebuild go the way Edmonton's has, however, even less do i want to see a Calgary rebuild. You know, one that took about 5 years too long to get started and yielded them a terrible return on Iggy (compared to what they could have gotten earlier) and even less on Kipper (NOTHING).

nuxfan

Posted - 03/05/2014 : 21:43:56

quote:Originally posted by Alex116You're not alone and quite frankly I'm a little surprised that so many Canuck fans think we still have a shot and should try to add pieces rather than rebuild.

To be clear, I don't think that we have a shot. I am under no illusions about this year's team, and given the way they're playing now they're unlikely to make the playoffs. Given the way other teams in the conference are playing, it would be a miracle to see VAN go past the first round. So, rebuild it will be, and I'm fine with that.

I simply don't think that a rebuild must include getting rid of Kesler. I understand that he would provide a good return - it is because HE IS A REALLY GOOD PLAYER. He's a 29 year old centre in the prime of his career that produces consistently, plays his heart out, and does everything for this team. He is very cap friendly at 5M per year, and has 2 more years on his contract. Every team in the NHL would like to add that kind of player, and VAN only has one - so if he has not explicitly requested a trade, why is VAN so keen to give him up?

They have other trade-able assets that they can use. They are rich in defensemen, Edler would fetch a great return. Forwards that are paid a lot and not producing - Burrows comes to mind. Assuming they buy out Booth this summer, they'll have 10M additional dollars, in addition to a cap raise, to add pieces to the team via free agency. They have promising prospects (Horvat, Jensen), that will likely get a serious shot next year. All very valuable in a rebuilding effort.

Just because we're using the word "rebuild", doesn't mean you have to chuck everyone that is good out and replace them with unproven youth. Most people in the city agree the Canucks need to improve, but I don't think anyone wants to go through an EDM-style "rebuild"

It will be an interesting summer in Vancouver to be sure. I'm curious to see what way ownership is going to go.

Alex116

Posted - 03/05/2014 : 20:51:59

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

shame, I was curious to see TT and Luongo as teammates...

@Alex - I think its at least possible that VAN ownership decided to keep Kesler because... Kesler is actually very good. Despite rumours, there has been nothing concrete from Kesler that he does want out of VAN. I think its good for VAN management to listen to offers for him, in case the too-good-to-pass-on offer comes along. But in the end, if they don't trade him, they still retain a very good player, who is reasonably young, that they can build around next year with some other moves.

They could also be planning to move in the summer, when the cap goes up and teams are building for the next year. May get more suitors.

I know Kesler hasn't come out and admitted he asked for a trade, and maybe he didn't, but from everything we've heard, you have to assume if nothing else he went to them and said he'd be willing to accept a trade (to certain teams) if the Canucks chose to go that route (rebuild).

There's a big difference between:"Hey Mike, IF you decide to start a rebuild, I'd prefer to be moved as I'm limited to the number of really quality years left in me to contribute. I'd prefer not to have to wait until I'm 33-34 for another shot at a cup as by then, I'd be a complimentary player at best."

AND

"Hey Mike, I want out! Trade me asap!!!"

Look at the overall picture though when discussing the situation the Canucks are in. For the last couple of years, most of us agreed that the window was closing. There may have still been a shot this year, but c'mon, by next year it's all but shut. SO, if they wanted to take one last shot, starting last summer right up until now, they should have been making or at least working on some moves. IF they decided last minute that it was too late (after both the slump of the top line AND Daniel's injury), and they figure they can get as good or better a return on Kes than was offered today, so be it. Oddly, Edler's name was barely mentioned today? Unless he told them flat out he'd exercise his NTC, they must have decided to keep him. If the rumours are true that management/owners want to make the playoffs this year for the "gate" (of likely just 2 games), i'll be horrified. It's unlikely they make it and if they do, it's prob just 2 games!

If when you say "build around him (Kesler)" next year, NO. That's crazy. They have too much building to do. What trade chips do they have??? They have a few decent prospects in the organization finally and now what, trade them for 1 last shot at a cup? Sorry, but IMO, it's too little too late and it's time to get what you can for him seeing as the Sedin's are very likely to retire as Canucks.

You're not alone and quite frankly I'm a little surprised that so many Canuck fans think we still have a shot and should try to add pieces rather than rebuild.

nuxfan

Posted - 03/05/2014 : 16:25:56 shame, I was curious to see TT and Luongo as teammates...

@Alex - I think its at least possible that VAN ownership decided to keep Kesler because... Kesler is actually very good. Despite rumours, there has been nothing concrete from Kesler that he does want out of VAN. I think its good for VAN management to listen to offers for him, in case the too-good-to-pass-on offer comes along. But in the end, if they don't trade him, they still retain a very good player, who is reasonably young, that they can build around next year with some other moves.

They could also be planning to move in the summer, when the cap goes up and teams are building for the next year. May get more suitors.

Posted - 03/05/2014 : 08:33:22 Heard this morning, and again, it's only a rumour, that Rob Rossi out of Pittsburgh made a claim that he doesn't think Gillis has approval from management to move Kesler and that he's likely to remain a Canuck through today?

Now, i'm not sure if that means ownership wants to sign off on any proposed trade involving Kesler, or if they simply want to keep him, but it does, if true, lend one to think that Gillis' job could in fact be on the line.

I still don't see it, not with 4 years left, but the Aquilini's are anything but short of money so it's possible. They have 2 choices really. Let Gillis rebuild this team, or bring someone else in to do it. That's about it really!

And I think the Canucks, if smart, would deal Kesler and Edler separately, they'd probably get more value out of it. For respective teams desperate for the different need.

Would LOVE to see the Leafs get an Edler . . . but I don't see a trade where the Leafs can fit him in under the cap, especially with probably cheaper, more youthful players with promise going the other way (Gardiner comes to mind, but there are other possibilities).

It's getting late in the day though, and Kesler remains a Canuck . . . I just sure hope Nonis isn't afraid of making that big deal if the situation suddenly presents itself and Canucks management goes crazy trying to move an asset like Kesler or Edler. A bad GM on a sinking ship of a team . . . I mean, if I'm Nonis, I am definitely making myself one of the jackals circling that carcass.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 03/04/2014 : 20:20:49

quote:Originally posted by The Duke

Alex...kadri is not enough for kesler, i agree, BUT.........kadri , Gardiner and a 1st rd pick for......kesler and Edler ?? are u nuts ??

I would give. Kadri....., 2nd rounder..... and an average prospect for kesler. Toronto would still win this trade, kesler is a great player.

Am I nuts? No, far from it. I guess we'll find out tomorrow if Kesler is dealt, but if you've not heard the asking price and the rumoured offers (starting offers) floated around, then you may be surprised. AND, before you go saying "yeah, well like the Luongo fiasco last year, Gillis is asking far too much, blah blah, blah", keep in mind Bob Mackenzie, Darren Dreger, etc have all justified the asking price calling it more than fair for a guy who could put a contender over the top. Here's the thing, Toronto is more than a "Kesler" from being considered a top contender for the cup, so that may make the asking price too steep. BUT, don't kid yourself, there's no way in HE77 you'd get both Kesler and Edler for Kadri, Gardiner and a 1st when that's pretty much the asking price for Kesler alone! I'm not gonna waste my or your time with rumours that can't be proven but if you do a bit of research, you'll see what's been rumoured to have been offered for Kesler and you'll then understand that it's very likely TO would accept that offer for BOTH Kesler and Edler. I can't guarantee it obviously, but ask around and I think you'd find that it's Vancouver that would say NO to that deal, unless It was for Kesler alone, then they'd consider it. How you figure Kadri, a 2nd and an "avg prospect" would land you Kesler is beyond fathomable when you see the other rumoured offers out there!

nuxfan

Posted - 03/04/2014 : 19:38:54

quote:Originally posted by The Duke

Alex...kadri is not enough for kesler, i agree, BUT.........kadri , Gardiner and a 1st rd pick for......kesler and Edler ?? are u nuts ??

I would give. Kadri....., 2nd rounder..... and an average prospect for kesler. Toronto would still win this trade, kesler is a great player.

I would give. Kadri....., 2nd rounder..... and an average prospect for kesler. Toronto would still win this trade, kesler is a great player.

Guest9325

Posted - 03/03/2014 : 03:31:43 If Tyler Myers its available I Would love To see Toronto go after him, maybe kadri straight up for him or I would prefer maybe finn and Percy. More likely Gardiner and Percy. O'rielly would have been nice last year but his value would be sky high now and he is kinda a smallish forward at six foot and we have enough of them.

Alex116

Posted - 03/01/2014 : 20:30:22 I don't know if Gillis would deal Kesler to Chicago or not, however, I wouldn't have a problem with it if he did providing the return was good enough to justify it! The Chi/Van rivalry has died down a little with Vancouver's struggles and let's face it, with a couple of years ahead that look to be mediocre at best for the Canucks, that rivalry will settle down substantially. Problem is, I'm not sure Chi would be able to offer up what the Canucks would want. B. Saad would be #1 on the list I'm sure, but I don't think the Hawks would include him. Don't know much about Shaw (salary, age, etc) but personally wouldn't consider him much more than a throw-in. Is he not basically a 3rd liner at best, with very little upside???

I think that if Saad was considered untouchable, Gillis would need to demand T. Teravainen, another prospect (maybe Pirri?) and a first rounder (which would be late). Prob would be salary, and we'd likely have to take Bickell to help offset Kes's. Also, not sure how soon TT can play (Pirri's been up for approx. half the season so far) and the thought is the Canucks would need to get an NHL ready forward in the deal?

I think there will be better suitors out there and Gillis will likely focus on the east and teams like Pittsburgh and Philly who are both said to have serious interest.

nuxfan

Posted - 02/28/2014 : 15:03:41

quote:Originally posted by Pasty7

Chicago Really wants a second line center to solidify their team

I would certainly consider a Toews for Kesler swap .

CHI would probably love to have him, but I cannot see MG trading Kesler to CHI. I'm also not sure what you ask for in return - CHI has to shed 5M in salary going the other way... Shaw, Saad, Hjalmarsson, any 2 of the 3? I don't sees CHI giving up either of Shaw or Saad.

Pasty7

Posted - 02/28/2014 : 14:05:31 Chicago Really wants a second line center to solidify their team, I know about the Van and Chi don`t mix, espcially Kesler who is one who has really agititated the hawks in the past but could you Imagin Toews followed by Kesler? the only 1 - 2 punch in the league that could maybe equal them defensivly is Backes Berguland, If i were The gm in Chicago and would check with my team and makes sure he won`t ruin the dressing room and if so i would make a hard push for him!

Oh and Alex to respond to your question Desharnais scores because Max Pacioretty is a beast, he is nothing without Max and is the worst defensive playe the league has seen since Marc Andree Bergeron

Hmm. Yeah, I might give up Kadri for Kesler, sure. Not sure how much beside Kadri I'd have to give, but might not be much . . . Kadri is young and has upside, and Kesler is an injury prone guy . . . could be close to even.

Kesler to the Rangers perhaps?Would he OK a Montreal deal?Then there's Philly and Pittsburgh . . . Philly would definitely make a play for Kesler.

Very, very interesting.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

This can't be just hitting TO news now can it Slozo?

It's been like this: - Kesler wants out and has asked for a trade, possibly as early as the beginning of the year. He was heard speaking of such in Sochi - Word gets out upon his return from Sochi and he mysteriously has an injury keeping him out of game action (is this possible that a deal is imminent and they don't want to risk a further injury?) - Kesler and his agent deny any such request

Pretty typical eh? Here's the thing. No one knows for sure (public) what has been said. It's entirely possible (and understandable from my standpoint) that he's asked for a trade to a contender if he believes the Canucks are going to rebuild/retool. It's also possible that he went to MG and said "Hey, i'm not asking for a deal, but i want you to know that i'd be open waiving my NTC if you feel you need to move me"?

It will be interesting to see in the next 5 or so days what happens but imo, they really should deal him! He's 29 and with his style of play has had some injuries. He's prob got 3 or 4 more solid years in him at most and there are plenty of teams out there who may consider him a HUGE piece to their puzzle moving into the post season. IMO, it's going to cost a young, potential top6 forward, a prospect and probably a draft pick, maybe even a 1st. Keep in mind, a contending team's 1st will be a late 1st most likely so that's nothing more than a lottery ticket really!

I've heard/read lots of deals being thrown around including Kadri's name coming up (as well as Gardiner's though i don't think the Canucks need D as much as F's in return). Other rumours involve Couturier in Philly, Tatar in Detroit, Jaskin or Schwartz in St Louis and Stepan in NY? More would be involved in deals with these teams but those are starting points.

Whether or not Kesler would waive to go to TO would be interesting as the rumour says he wants to go to the US. Whether or not Gillis and Nonis can be civil enough to work a deal out is another question?

How would you feel about Kadri, Gardiner and a 1st for Kesler and Edler?

nuxfan

Posted - 02/28/2014 : 07:58:18

quote:Originally posted by slozo

So what's all this on Ryan Kesler of Vancouver?

There is a LOT of chatter that he was very public and openly talking about how he had asked for a trade, he wanted a trade/wanted out of Vancouver . . . but now publicly denies it all, of course.

Hmm. Yeah, I might give up Kadri for Kesler, sure. Not sure how much beside Kadri I'd have to give, but might not be much . . . Kadri is young and has upside, and Kesler is an injury prone guy . . . could be close to even.

Kesler to the Rangers perhaps?Would he OK a Montreal deal?Then there's Philly and Pittsburgh . . . Philly would definitely make a play for Kesler.

Very, very interesting.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

According to the original reports, Kesler is only interested in moving to a US team, which would nullify the Leafs. But you never know... IMO Kadri for Kesler straight up would not be enough - Kesler does everything that Kadri does but better and more.

BUF has finally joined the fray, read today that both Myers and Erhoff are in play. Ehrhoff is interesting - initially that contract was crazy, but now that BUF has paid the first 20M in the first 3 years, the rest of his deal (4M per season) looks pretty reasonable for someone like him. He had his best success with VAN, I wonder if they take a run at him.

slozo

Posted - 02/28/2014 : 06:48:51 So what's all this on Ryan Kesler of Vancouver?

There is a LOT of chatter that he was very public and openly talking about how he had asked for a trade, he wanted a trade/wanted out of Vancouver . . . but now publicly denies it all, of course.

Hmm. Yeah, I might give up Kadri for Kesler, sure. Not sure how much beside Kadri I'd have to give, but might not be much . . . Kadri is young and has upside, and Kesler is an injury prone guy . . . could be close to even.

Kesler to the Rangers perhaps?Would he OK a Montreal deal?Then there's Philly and Pittsburgh . . . Philly would definitely make a play for Kesler.

Very, very interesting.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

Alex116

Posted - 02/27/2014 : 22:30:31 Great post Pasty, and I agree with a lot of it. Now, you obviously see them (the habs) a lot more than me, but I'm a little surprised you're so down on Desharnais. I thought he'd found some chemistry there and assumed he'd be ok as a 2nd line center? You clearly have no use for him! Is he that bad?

Couldn't agree more with Markov. Get as much as you can for him before it's too late. I don't think he'll bring you much more than a late 1st (as you said, a 1st from a contender) but take what you can get as I agree the Habs aren't as close to true contender as they may appear in the standings.

Plekanec, if you're ridding yourselves of Deharnais should stay as the #2 center, no? He's responsible defensively and offers some offensive upside. I like him a lot actually. I see no reason why they'd wanna get rid of this guy unless someone overpaid for him. I will admit, I wasn't aware he's as old as he is (31) so maybe, like Kesler, it's time to get something for him?

Gorges, like Markov, prob should be moved for future talent, be it a prospect or picks. Montreal has Tinordi, Beaulieu, etc who the need to start feeding ice-time so they can evaluate if they are as good as expected moving forward.

Like Vancouver, I think this team needs to make some moves and allow some youngsters to develop for a couple years before making a serious run at Lord Stanley's mug!

Pasty7

Posted - 02/27/2014 : 14:30:07 I hope Montreal realizes yes they may be in third but they are far from a contender and in a tight eastern conference I can`t see them getting out of the first round with their extremly weak defensive zone coverage. The only way this team contends is if Carey Price is 8 times as good as Halak was a few years ago.

If I was in charge of the Habs :

Markov: must be moved at the deadline, he is having a good year and could get you a 1rst round pick from a contending team and maybe a bit more.

Gionta: Must be moved, he is in the way pure and simple he is takeing ice time away from young kids who could perform better and need ice time to grow, being a realist i do not know what you could get for a guy like this but whatever you can get take it.

Desharnais: Must be moved though I don`t think they can but again he`s in the way. No team will ever win a stanley cup with this guy in their top 6 period. He is a waste of space for any team trying to become a contender with the youth montreal has at his position

Briere : Move him for whatever a team is willing to send back,

Plekanec: Signed to a reasonable contract and is a solid two way player but i don`t feel like this team can win with him. He has signifigant value to a team and i would only move him for a 1rst rounder along with a solid prospect, and even a 2nd rounder

Gorges: I love the guy but i think his body is going to give out the way he plays, I already think it has he still has value you now and could really help a team in a playoff run for the right deal i would move him,

As you can see I think the habs need to build around the kids they have and i don`t want to keep plugging along. The habs are too small and their is only one way to fix that in my mind move the small guys out and re tool and draft big,

As for the Vancouver Canucks, I do expect them to make a big splash. Kesler, Edler, depth players and maybe Luongo.

I would assume that (privately) VAN has written themselves out of having a chance to go very far this year. But like TOR, if the existing team were completely healthy going into the post-season, anything could happen. I doubt most of these happen at the deadline.

According to local reports, Kesler wants to play in the US, hence his trade request. We'll see what happens.

Leafs81

Posted - 02/26/2014 : 13:45:18 Don't trade Bolland, keep him for the playoffs. Because if Toronto are having a 4-1 lead in the third period of the game 7, they will not lose with Bolland in the lineup. They traded for him to play in the playoffs, don't trade him away.

As for offseason he's asking too much and let him go. Well the Toronto Maple Leafs did shoot themselves in the foot by signing Clarkson, this is such a bad signing, and it frustrates me more and more.

As for the Vancouver Canucks, I do expect them to make a big splash. Kesler, Edler, depth players and maybe Luongo.

I expect the Oilers to finally trade one of their young guns.

Other then that the Islanders will be big sellers with MacDonald and Vanek on the market. (man what a bad trade that was Vanek for Moulson and a first rounder.) wow Garth Snow is one of the worst GM.

Alex116

Posted - 02/26/2014 : 11:13:38 There was a rumour floating about that the Canucks were working on a deal (during the Oly break) that would send one or more guys out who "weren't names we'd been heard thrown about before". This would mean a guy like Kesler would fit that bill! It would be a big move, but i'd be okay with it for the right return!

Kes seems to be a very serious competetor and i don't think he'd be all that thrilled about a rebuild or "retooling" here. I think his competetive juices are flowing and he'd prob waive his NTC to move to a contender or a team which is on the verge of contending in the next couple of seasons.

nuxfan

Posted - 02/26/2014 : 10:36:37 Updates to the trade talk thread:

- increasing chatter about the Canucks, consensus is that they'll be sellers at this year's deadline (too many key injuries to allow them to compete this year, may not make the playoffs). The names that come up are Edler (predictable) and Kesler (unanticipated). I cannot see MG trading Kesler, but arguably he would bring a monster return if he were dealt. Will see how this pans out.

- I heard on the radio today that Bolland is seeking an 8yr deal in excess of 40M, so 5M+ per year. 5+ for 8 years seems ridiculous for a player 6 years removed from his best year of 47 points, but then again... Clarkson. As a UFA, if TOR cannot extend him, is he moved by the deadline?

@Duke

quote:Nuxfan...Alex....Do you ever think about the Canucks moving the Sedins ??....could be a very smart move for them while the twins still have some value.....i don`t think they will ever lead Van. to a stanley cup and if they don`t...why not trade them and start over ?

Yes, I do think about it., although whether or not its a smart move is debatable. You're talking about 2 players that have been PPG for several years and are having a tough single year, hard to say yet if this is the beginning of a decline or just a bad year.

If you do trade, the trick is a) getting return, and b) replacing them. If you trade away 2/3 of your top line responsible for more than half of your offensive production each season, can you find 2 other players to do the same, either via the trade or free agency? If the answer is NO, then you probably don't trade them.

The Duke

Posted - 02/08/2014 : 10:56:59 Trading Kulemin at this point doesn`t make sense to me. What are the leafs going to get in return that will help the team get better this season ??.....trading players like Kulemin to cup contenders usually bring a draft pick or prospect back....now theres nothing wrong with that but i`d rather see the leafs do this in the summer, not right now, Kulemin could be a valuable piece this season.

Nuxfan...Alex....Do you ever think about the Canucks moving the Sedins ??....could be a very smart move for them while the twins still have some value.....i don`t think they will ever lead Van. to a stanley cup and if they don`t...why not trade them and start over ?

nuxfan

Posted - 02/05/2014 : 08:51:57

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

quote:Originally posted by Guest6173

Is there a trade period in this pool? Thanks

Heard today that although he's got a NTC, there's been talk of an Edler to Detroit deal in the works that could happen in the next couple days. This would mean he'd have to waive his NTC of course, but he may be interested in moving on? Strange thing is though, MG has said he won't ask guys to do such a thing (waive the NTC) so unless a guy comes and actually asks to be moved, then I don't know how he'd get a deal done??? Unless of course Edler has mentioned this but I kinda doubt it?

NTC/NMC don't do much to prevent trades, and players waive them all the time. It just provides some security for a player to veto a trade that they *really* don't like (ie, last place team, coach they don't like, whatever). If VAN makes it clear that they want to trade Edler, he'll waive the NTC for someone, esp with 5 years left on his deal.

Every time a top offensive dman comes up in trade talks, DET surfaces. They have been looking to fill Lidstrom's absence, and from what I can tell have long coveted Edler (scouted him heavily and nearly drafted him until VAN got him first). I can see DET being interested in Edler, but like you, cannot think of what comes the other way. Both teams are aging, both want youth and will therefore be unwilling to part with it.

Alex116

Posted - 02/04/2014 : 20:57:54

quote:Originally posted by Guest6173

Is there a trade period in this pool? Thanks

What pool do you speak of?

Heard today that although he's got a NTC, there's been talk of an Edler to Detroit deal in the works that could happen in the next couple days. This would mean he'd have to waive his NTC of course, but he may be interested in moving on? Strange thing is though, MG has said he won't ask guys to do such a thing (waive the NTC) so unless a guy comes and actually asks to be moved, then I don't know how he'd get a deal done??? Unless of course Edler has mentioned this but I kinda doubt it?

Personally, I get where Gillis coming from in not wanting to ask players this, but he has to understand that it's business. Sure, they earned and negotiated these things, but as the GM, I think you have to at least explore the possibilities at this time. If a guy is adamant about wanting to enforce it, he stays. If he agrees to move on, he'd prob have a few teams he'd accept moving to. Seems pretty simple.

FTR, no report of what the Canucks would get in return.

Guest6173

Posted - 02/04/2014 : 20:02:45 Is there a trade period in this pool? Thanks

slozo

Posted - 02/02/2014 : 08:28:37 Many rumours on Kulemin frm the Leafs being sought after by many teams . . . and although Nonis wasn't shopping him per se, he's listening to all offers.

I can see this - Kulemin is the kind of player a solid playoff team looks for . . . and surely, is the kind of player Toronto might be able to squeeze out a nice little overpayment for.

IMHO, now might be the time to deal Kulemin when a team is willing to overpay. Our young guys (Ashton, etc) have filled in just fine in this role, and it's not a high value position (3rd line occasional scorer who is defensively responsible and decent on the boards).

I say go for it. I know among Toronto fans, Kulemin was and still is a guy we all like . . . but we have to put away our memories of 30 goal Kulemin, and be cold and hard and look at what he is now. I'd wish him the best, and I really like him, but if it made our team better with no risk at replacing him . . . you do that deal.

"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug

nuxfan

Posted - 01/30/2014 : 08:33:11

quote:Originally posted by Alex116As for Edler, I guess he'd have to agree to waive his NTC if he were part of a deal? 2 years ago I'd have said the Canucks were crazy to even consider dealing Edler. Now, I'd be okay with it. He's really not panned out the way I'd expected/hoped. It's a shame. He really does have all the tools, but he just continues to be inconsistent and uninterested on some nights? I think It'd take more than Edler to get Kane and maybe even for Ladd?

I think most people had very high expectations of Edler after a couple of very good seasons - the next coming if Lidstrom type expectations. But he has proven to be inconsistent, both in scoring ability and ability to use his size, and just isn't as effective as you would hope he would be.

That being said, he's still a very good dman that plays all situations and 24+ minutes per game, is only 28 years old, and carries a pretty reasonable 5M cap hit for the next 5 years. He'd be top-2 on half of the teams in the NHL (including WPG), and guaranteed top-4 on the rest. If he can finally figure out that he's big enough to make a difference physically, he'll become the player we all saw in the 2011 cup run. I don't think that Edler straight up for Kane or Ladd would happen either, but I bet it would not take much more.

Then, VAN can start rethinking their plans for defense going forward - I think that time has come.

Alex116

Posted - 01/29/2014 : 23:37:36

quote:Originally posted by nuxfan

lots of talk recently about WPG, and Ladd or Kane being on the move. Not surprisingly, the Canucks are rumored to be in the hunt for either (both are local boys), and either would be a huge addition to the team.

I'm not sure what would have to go the other way though, neither would be cheap. I'd be more than happy to see Edler go the other way as part of a package, or perhaps straight up.

I'm really hoping they (the Canucks / MG) don't do too much. I'd love to have Ladd or Kane, especially at their age as we'd have them for the long haul, but I worry about a "rental". I keep hearing Matt Moulson's name? NO! The Canucks are a better team with Matt Moulson, but they're still at least 2 more pieces away from being a serious contender with him.

As for Edler, I guess he'd have to agree to waive his NTC if he were part of a deal? 2 years ago I'd have said the Canucks were crazy to even consider dealing Edler. Now, I'd be okay with it. He's really not panned out the way I'd expected/hoped. It's a shame. He really does have all the tools, but he just continues to be inconsistent and uninterested on some nights? I think It'd take more than Edler to get Kane and maybe even for Ladd?

nuxfan

Posted - 01/29/2014 : 13:25:44 lots of talk recently about WPG, and Ladd or Kane being on the move. Not surprisingly, the Canucks are rumored to be in the hunt for either (both are local boys), and either would be a huge addition to the team.

I'm not sure what would have to go the other way though, neither would be cheap. I'd be more than happy to see Edler go the other way as part of a package, or perhaps straight up.

ryan93

Posted - 01/28/2014 : 18:00:12

quote:Originally posted by Guest3792

1st) Klein for 5 years > Del Zotto for 1 year. Hands down everytime. Nasville needs to resign this guy and hope they can turn his career in the right direction just for a chance at winning this trade.2nd) Hearing lots of David Legwand rumours...3rd) Hearing lots of Andrew Ladd rumours...

Not necessarily Guest3792. Klein is ideally a 3rd pairing defensemen. To me he is overpaid at $3 million a season. Del Zotto is 6 years younger, and shown in the past he can be an above average offensive defensemen capable of playing at least top 4 minutes ( he played at 40 point pace the previous 2 seasons while averaging 23 minutes a night).

Alex116

Posted - 01/28/2014 : 16:25:42 The Miller rumours continue to swirl, with Minnesota allegedly offering Heatly (not sure Buff would want him), a 1st AND either Charlie Coyle or Mikael Granlund. That's a pretty good return imo, i just don't know if Miller would wanna go there? It's not like they're a contender this year at least? However, there's not a lot of teams which are considered serious contenders that need a top tier goalie!

St. Louis continues to be mentioned in the running for Miller as well. No offers that i've heard of have come about just yet.

The other one being reported is a possible R. Bourque for PA Parenteau deal? One source claims Montreal turned it down, the other says Colorado did? Not sure if this one gets done or not?

Obviously Vanek and Moulsen are mentioned frequently as well?

Guest3792

Posted - 01/28/2014 : 15:54:31 1st) Klein for 5 years > Del Zotto for 1 year. Hands down everytime. Nasville needs to resign this guy and hope they can turn his career in the right direction just for a chance at winning this trade.2nd) Hearing lots of David Legwand rumours...3rd) Hearing lots of Andrew Ladd rumours...